In fraud cases, timing is all important. I believe it could be argued that NetSol's practice of not notifying buyers of stolen domains of such a determination
From Netsol's perspective, there is no meaningful distinction between "buyer of a stolen domain name" and "person who stole the domain name". Two apparently stolen domain names were transferred to an account. What conclusion might someone reach if stolen cars keep ending up in your garage?
And, assuming everything is as it appears here, what difference would it make if Netsol had contacted the person who received the stolen domain name?
One simple question Netsol might ask is, "If you bought the domain name, where did the payment go?" The buyer doesn't know.
Another scenario consistent with the facts is that two friends steal a domain name which has fallen into disuse. Perhaps the registrant organization has gone out of business or otherwise wouldn't notice or care if the domain name was taken. In the course of stealing the name, they engage in a sham Escrow.com transaction in order to make it look like the thief was a defrauded victim in the event that the original registrant notices.
As Teradomain suggests, if we assume that everything posted at drjw.com is legit, we have a domain transfer from "Frank Slakmon" to "Lou Zhiyong", and an Escrow transaction between "Patrick Sitrock" and "Ye Tian".
So, if one considers the material posted at that site, one might ask the basic question of :
"How does 'Ye Tian' paying 'Patrick Sitrock' suggest that 'Lou Zhiyong' bought a domain name from 'Frank Slakmon'?"
There are some other oddities in the material posted at drjw.com. The first is that the "buyer" is apparently aware that the original registrant admin contact was
[email protected]. Looking at the second Dec. 13th email, and the posted WHOIS history, the "buyer" states that the domain name was restored "to the original owner". If the buyer knew that
[email protected] was the email address of "the original owner" (and the buyer clearly has access to WHOIS history data) does it strike you as odd that neither the escrow transaction or the domain transfer involved "the original owner" which was apparently known to the buyer?